NUISANCE AND THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER
Actionable nuisances can be public or private. Here we are largely concerned with Private Nuisance, although we
will touch on Public Nuisance briefly.
A. Private Nuisance
a) Introduction
Private nuisance is a tort designed to protect land and interests in land: E.G. Noise, smell, fumes, dust, vibration.
Unlike trespass nuisance covers indirect and intangible interferences and requires proof of harm – trespass does
not (it is actionable per se);
Public nuisance involves a section of the public and is not concerned with protecting property rights.
Forms of private nuisance:
Physical damage to land, e.g. by flooding
Substantial interference with use and enjoyment of land, e.g. excessive noise from neighbour: “Sensible
personal discomfort”
Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1 WLR 683: Bad smells from oil works (“a particularly pungent smell”)
amounted to a private nuisance.
Encroachment onto neighbour’s land, e.g. overhanging branches
LECTURE CASE STUDY: Past exam question
Orual Ltd, a manufacturing company, owns a disused warehouse in the Hillview area. In 2015 the Local Authority
granted planning permission for the warehouse to be converted into a fully working factory.
The factory is operational until 2.00am each morning. Ever since the factory has been operational the local
residents of Hillview have made complaints about the dust and noise coming from the factory.
Richard owns a nearby cottage and finds that the dust from the factory damages the paintwork on his
fence.
Richard’s 12-year-old son, Phillip, is profoundly disturbed by the noise coming from the factory and as a
consequence is having difficulty concentrating at school.
Gerald loses a great deal of sleep as a result of the noise. His usual working pattern means that he has
to go to bed early in order to get up at 5.00am for work.
Orual Ltd stores a large amount of straw in a shed on the factory premises. Despite taking all reasonable care, in
February 2016 a spark from an undetectable electrical fault ignited the straw. The resulting fire spread to Quin’s
nearby garage and completely destroyed it.
Advise Richard, Phillip, Gerald and Quin upon any claims they may have in nuisance or under the rule in
Rylands v Fletcher.
b) Establishing liability: What amounts to a private nuisance?
Tort of Negligence: Focus on the Private Nuisance: Focus on the
standard of the defendant’s consequences for the claimant.
conduct.
, i) INTRODUCTION: The concept of “reasonable user”
DEFINITION Nuisance: “….a state of affairs which unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of
land.” Not the same as “reasonable care” in negligence.
Balance of interests: There must be a “give and take” between neighbours – a balance of interests
between landowners. Not every inconvenience will amount to an actionable nuisance.
Walter v Selfe (1851) 20 LJ Ch. 433, 435, per Sir Knight-Bruce VC: “materially (significance)
interferes with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to
elegant or dainty modes and habits of living.”
Barr v Biffa Waste Services [2012] EWCA Civ 312: “There must be a real interference with the
comfort or convenience of living, according to the standards of the average man”.
Property damage: Will much more readily be seen by the courts as unreasonable.
The factors used to establish reasonableness, such as the nature of the locality (see notes
below), will not be relevant when it comes to physical damage to property: St Helen’s Smelting
Co. v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642, 651 (House of Lords).
PROBLEM SOLVING POINTS
1. Establishing liability;
2. Who can sue?
3. Who can be sued?
4. Defences.
ii) Factors the courts take into account in determining “reasonable user” of land
The nature of the locality
“What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”: Sturges v
Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D 852, Thesiger LJ.
EXAMPLE: A factory is less likely to be a nuisance in an industrial area than a residential one.
But it is possible for the character of a locality to change.
The effect of planning permission - Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co. Ltd. [1993] QB
343
Planning permission granted to convert a disused dock into a working one;
Changed the character of the neighbourhood so that residents could not allege nuisance in
relation to the use of the dock
But planning permission is not a defence to nuisance: Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 (Supreme Court)
Planning permission granted for racing stadium; Lawrence complained of noise
Planning permission had not by itself changed the character of the neighbourhood, but it could
be relevant only in determining what amounted to reasonable noise for that particular
neighbourhood.
The duration of the nuisance
The greater the frequency of the interference the more likely it is to be unreasonable:
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd. v Spicer Bros Ltd. (1914) 30 TLR 257: Temporary interference due to
construction work still held to be unreasonable.
Crown River Cruises Ltd. v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd. [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 533: During a firework display
nearby property was damaged. Held to be unreasonable even though the firework display was
temporary.
Actionable nuisances can be public or private. Here we are largely concerned with Private Nuisance, although we
will touch on Public Nuisance briefly.
A. Private Nuisance
a) Introduction
Private nuisance is a tort designed to protect land and interests in land: E.G. Noise, smell, fumes, dust, vibration.
Unlike trespass nuisance covers indirect and intangible interferences and requires proof of harm – trespass does
not (it is actionable per se);
Public nuisance involves a section of the public and is not concerned with protecting property rights.
Forms of private nuisance:
Physical damage to land, e.g. by flooding
Substantial interference with use and enjoyment of land, e.g. excessive noise from neighbour: “Sensible
personal discomfort”
Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1 WLR 683: Bad smells from oil works (“a particularly pungent smell”)
amounted to a private nuisance.
Encroachment onto neighbour’s land, e.g. overhanging branches
LECTURE CASE STUDY: Past exam question
Orual Ltd, a manufacturing company, owns a disused warehouse in the Hillview area. In 2015 the Local Authority
granted planning permission for the warehouse to be converted into a fully working factory.
The factory is operational until 2.00am each morning. Ever since the factory has been operational the local
residents of Hillview have made complaints about the dust and noise coming from the factory.
Richard owns a nearby cottage and finds that the dust from the factory damages the paintwork on his
fence.
Richard’s 12-year-old son, Phillip, is profoundly disturbed by the noise coming from the factory and as a
consequence is having difficulty concentrating at school.
Gerald loses a great deal of sleep as a result of the noise. His usual working pattern means that he has
to go to bed early in order to get up at 5.00am for work.
Orual Ltd stores a large amount of straw in a shed on the factory premises. Despite taking all reasonable care, in
February 2016 a spark from an undetectable electrical fault ignited the straw. The resulting fire spread to Quin’s
nearby garage and completely destroyed it.
Advise Richard, Phillip, Gerald and Quin upon any claims they may have in nuisance or under the rule in
Rylands v Fletcher.
b) Establishing liability: What amounts to a private nuisance?
Tort of Negligence: Focus on the Private Nuisance: Focus on the
standard of the defendant’s consequences for the claimant.
conduct.
, i) INTRODUCTION: The concept of “reasonable user”
DEFINITION Nuisance: “….a state of affairs which unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of
land.” Not the same as “reasonable care” in negligence.
Balance of interests: There must be a “give and take” between neighbours – a balance of interests
between landowners. Not every inconvenience will amount to an actionable nuisance.
Walter v Selfe (1851) 20 LJ Ch. 433, 435, per Sir Knight-Bruce VC: “materially (significance)
interferes with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to
elegant or dainty modes and habits of living.”
Barr v Biffa Waste Services [2012] EWCA Civ 312: “There must be a real interference with the
comfort or convenience of living, according to the standards of the average man”.
Property damage: Will much more readily be seen by the courts as unreasonable.
The factors used to establish reasonableness, such as the nature of the locality (see notes
below), will not be relevant when it comes to physical damage to property: St Helen’s Smelting
Co. v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642, 651 (House of Lords).
PROBLEM SOLVING POINTS
1. Establishing liability;
2. Who can sue?
3. Who can be sued?
4. Defences.
ii) Factors the courts take into account in determining “reasonable user” of land
The nature of the locality
“What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”: Sturges v
Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D 852, Thesiger LJ.
EXAMPLE: A factory is less likely to be a nuisance in an industrial area than a residential one.
But it is possible for the character of a locality to change.
The effect of planning permission - Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co. Ltd. [1993] QB
343
Planning permission granted to convert a disused dock into a working one;
Changed the character of the neighbourhood so that residents could not allege nuisance in
relation to the use of the dock
But planning permission is not a defence to nuisance: Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 (Supreme Court)
Planning permission granted for racing stadium; Lawrence complained of noise
Planning permission had not by itself changed the character of the neighbourhood, but it could
be relevant only in determining what amounted to reasonable noise for that particular
neighbourhood.
The duration of the nuisance
The greater the frequency of the interference the more likely it is to be unreasonable:
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd. v Spicer Bros Ltd. (1914) 30 TLR 257: Temporary interference due to
construction work still held to be unreasonable.
Crown River Cruises Ltd. v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd. [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 533: During a firework display
nearby property was damaged. Held to be unreasonable even though the firework display was
temporary.
